Petition challenged the Bombay High Court's order allowing respondent's dealing with OBC qualification. Court held Tribunal was right as OM was not part of advertisement. Petition dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed. Additional stay application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~49
Through : Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J ( ORAL )
CM APPL 30134 /2015
Page 1 of 2
W.P.(C) No.11426 /2015
prescribed in the Wealth Tax Act for a period of three consecutive years would be eligible for the benefits of age relaxation/reservation in the OBC category. Further, the Certificate which was required to be submitted should have been issued within three years preceding the closing date for submission of the application. The learned counsel contends that since the Certificate of the respondent was more than three years old and the subsequent Certificate obtained by him was issued after the cut off date i.e. 27.10.2008, he could not have been given benefit of reservation.
CM.APPL 30133/2015(stay)
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
DECEMBER 09 , 2015 pst
Page 2 of 2
W.P.(C) No.11426 /2015
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal could be faulted for allowing the respondent's petition without considering the petitioner's OM dated 08.09.1993 regarding OBC certificate validity.
Staff Selection Commission & Ors.
Shri Asif Ali Zaved
G.S. Sistani
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
